Oversimplifying the World

Lots of talk about what Obama really meant by his "like it or not" statement on America's super power status at the loose nuke summit--I think he's embarrassed to consider himself the leader of such a huge power in light of all the apologizing he's done over the past year.

But it's dog bites man--the same kind of sentiment can be easily found in the writings of the former ideological friends he threw under the bus during the campaign and most probably even within his own writings should they ever come out. The bigger question is whether the summit logo was actually a sneaky Islamic crescent!

Anyway, this New York Times article on the matter contains two paragraphs quoting former Congressman Robert Wexler (now part of a Mid-East think tank) that are most bizarre:

“The president is re-evaluating the tactics his administration is employing toward Israel and the entire Middle East,” said Robert Wexler, a former Democratic congressman who resigned in January to lead the Center for Middle East Peace, a Washington-based nonprofit institution that is working for a peace agreement.

“I don’t think that anybody believes American lives are endangered or materially affected by the Israeli-Palestinian conflict,” said Mr. Wexler, who has close ties to administration officials. “That’s an oversimplification. However, you’d have to have blinders on not to recognize that there are issues in one arena that affect other arenas.”

Anybody? I think almost everybody believes American lives could be endangered by the conflict, since almost every terrorist over the last 30 years has evoked Israel in some way, shape or form. Even long dead writers of the Bible saw the danger there. So Wexler is either off his gord or just illustrating the stock world-socialist view of how to solve the crisis--less Israel. In the latter case we might ask, just how close are his ties to the administration?

Well, I continue to wonder if Obama is just pulling a grand subterfuge on the dimwits of the world or whether he really believes the stuff coming outa his own mouth. I continue to wonder which might be worse, and have found no solution as yet.

Meanwhile the Times continues to live up to their low expectations. In their mention of the letter sent to the administration about Israel by most in Congress they pulled a classic 'oversimplification' of their own:

On Tuesday, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a powerful pro-Israel lobbying group, publicized letters to Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, signed by 76 senators and 333 House members, that implored the administration to defuse tensions.

Ben Smith at Politico described the letter as a 'rebuke'. It was clearly meant to show support for Israel after Clinton and Obama publicly chastised them, not just to "diffuse tensions" in the region. By mischaracterizing the letter we might ask--just how close are the Times' ties to this administration?